Mahesh Grover, J.:-

C.M. No. 4E of 2015

1. Allowed as prayed for.

C.M. No. 13E of 2014

In Election Petition No. 5 of 2014 titled Navjot Singh v. Smt. Harsimrat Kaur Badal, an application has been moved by the respondent under Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a prayer to dismiss the main election petition.

2. For the purpose of reference, Section 86(1) of the Act is reproduced here below :-

"86. Trial of election petitions.- (1) The High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117.

Explanation.- An order of the High Court dismissing an election petition under this sub-section shall be deemed to be an order made under clause (a) of section 98."

3. Section 81(1) of the Act provides for the period of limitation within which an election petition can be preferred. It is extracted here below :-

"81. Presentation of petitions.- (1) An election petition calling in question any election may be presented by one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at such election or any elector within forty-five days from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and dates of their election are different, the later of those two dates.

Explanation.- In this sub-section, "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates, whether he has voted at such election or not."

4. Section 82, on the other hand, provides for the necessary parties to the petition which is also extracted here below :-

"82. Parties to the petition.- A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition -

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition."

5. Non-compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law i.e. Sections 81 and 82 of the Act by the petitioner is the primary cause of the instant application.

6. To put it briefly, the respondent to the petition states that the petition ought to be dismissed on the following grounds :-

(1) Being barred by limitation, and

(2) For want of non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. The counting of votes of election in question took place on 16.5.2014 and it is agreed that the limitation of 45 days would expire on 29.6.2014 while the petition was preferred on 30.6.2014.

8. It is also the common case of the parties that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would be applicable in computing the period of limitation.

9. Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is extracted here below:-

"10. Computation of time.- (1) Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open :

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), applies.

(2) This section applies also to all Central Acts and Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887."

10. It is also conceded that the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply and thus, the flexibility provided under the Limitation Act for condonation of dela

Click Here to Read the rest of this document